climate change

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Science Director at The Heartland Institute, Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition: When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr. Jay Lehr had the privilege of leading one of these societies long ago.

But things are different now. Whether it be chemistry, physics, geology or engineering, many of the world’s primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members' financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world’s greatest science fraud.

Freeman Dyson - I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence. Truth emerges when different groups of explorers listen to each other’s stories and correct each other’s mistakes.

Norman Rogers, Physicist. Contributor to American Thinker, Board Member: CO2 Coalition, National Association of Scholars, Policy Advisor: Heartland Institute, Member: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society: The title of this new book is a play on aristocracy. The science aristocracy is living off its former reputation as honest investigators of the natural world. But now they are largely mean-spirited bureaucrats who don't hesitate to fake science when it serves their bureaucratic and financial goals. The public, politicians, and the media are mostly scientific ignoramuses easily fooled into believing that fake science is rock-solid science. There is an alliance driven by the money-greed of the science mandarins and the socialist dreams of the political Left.

Politicians, actors, and "climate activists" warn us regularly that meltwater from massive ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland, the Arctic Sea ice, and glaciers around the world will soon drown our coastal towns and cities, and the process will become "irreversible."

But fundamental data, observations, and established physical laws do not support this hysteria of human-made CO2 global warming.

THE BOTTOM LINE: CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS GROSSLY DISTORT AND EXAGGERATE THE EFFECT OF HUMANKIND ON SEA LEVEL.

Dennis Hedke, geophysicist: Are the world's coastal cities destined to be inundated as ice melts at the top and bottom of the planet, causing the oceans to rise? Climate alarmists argue this will be the case if policymakers do not adopt draconian measures to eliminate fossil fuels, especially coal, which produce carbon dioxide emissions that, they allege, cause harmful global warming.

Anthony Watts, website: wattsupwiththat.com. He takes National Geographic to task for using scare tactics suggesting that ocean levels will rise to a height midway up the Statue of Liberty. How long do you think it will take for oceans to rise that high, given current rates or rates several times faster? Can man-kind cause this to happen?

Paul Driessen, CFACT, Roger Bezdek: Saltwater intrusion clearly has been an increasing problem across much of Chesapeake Bay. Climate alarmists attribute this danger to human fossil fuel use. Reality is much different. At least for the Chesapeake region, Houston-Galveston, Texas, area, Santa Clara Valley, California, and other places around the globe, the primary cause of seawater intrusions is not rising oceans – but land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal and to “glacial isostatic adjustments.”

Thomas Ruppert, Coastal Planning Specialist: This primer on sea-level rise (SLR) offers information on its causes and what this may mean for Florida. Has Sea Level Changed Before? Yes. Sea levels around the globe have fallen and risen dramatically over millions of years, driven primarily by glacial advance and retreat. Sea-level changes in the distant past were often substantial and occurred faster than our current change. After the last ice age ended approximately 20,000 years ago, sea level rose rapidly, but for the last few thousand years has been rising very slowly and has been almost stable for the last 4-5 thousand years.

As career physicists, science demonstrates there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Thus no scientific basis for the proposed rule.

“If adopted, disastrous consequences for people worldwide and the U.S. because it would reduce CO2 and the use of fossil fuels.

Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance: Selling nuclear by its lack of CO2 emissions has been a dumb idea all along, and the Greens are certainly not going to continue “supporting” it once it becomes clear we really must begin using a lot more of it.

Geert de Vries, physicist: Since 2010 I said that nuclear power should not sail under the false green flag that advertises its nil-CO2 output. That is because CO2 does not do what it is accused of, and one day people will find out. Then nuclear will lose the traction that came with the nil-CO2. And nuclear will once again be saddled with the old bugbears nuclear waste, radiation danger and proliferation. Until recently I expected that day to be another decade or more in the future.

Harold Doiron, Mechanical Engineer, retired from US Space Program: We need to focus climate research on getting rid of the unnecessary "official" uncertainty regarding the GHG climate threat, by outlawing unvalidated climate simulation model output for use in public policy decision-making, and only trust validated observation-based models that are in compliance with The Scientific Method.

William Happer, Professor of Physics - He believes that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. He predicts that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution to ban the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors. It as the 1917 version of saving the planet. What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of Prohibition. At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player.

Richard Lindzen, MIT Climate Scientist, Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.

Will Happer, Princeton Physicist, Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path.

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.